Ah! Now that would change the whole subject, because whenever gender is the issue, then that DNA must be nuclear rather than mitochondrial.
Anyhow, the hypothesis of an African mitochondrial Eve is extremely controversial, academically speaking.
Firstly it does not mean that reproduction can carry on without males for the human species. While cloning can be from either gender equally successful. In other words, what was brought up till now does not prove the ladies point that males are on the verge of extinction. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
Secondly, to make it short, AME is only a hypothesis that is strongly being opposed academically and it found its way to our textbooks but the ancestral trees prove nothing because the best models could be as good without any African origin exclusively, which tears the hypothesis to shreds.
A single ultimate original female may not have mixed continental mitochondrial DNA, but the best phylogenetic trees contradict with the hypothesis. Archaeologists are already pulling their hair and opposing biochemists as renegades because the oldest human due to the new hypothesis is Eve who lived in Africa 142,500 – 285,000 years ago, while archaeologists insist that mankind may be dated as back as 1,000,000 years.
Yes, I am a biochemist but I do not follow like a lemming and I have my own technical points against the hypothesis but this forum is not the right place for publishing them.
